Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan

[russ_watters]

But then again, justifiable depends upon where you come from, and which legal system you are used to, so it's all cyclic. There are justice systems in the world where the death penalty is never used.

(Again, I'm not saying I don't support the outcome, just mostly playing devil's advocate, before people yell at me!).

You missed my point. I said previously that no justice system is equipped to handle such a thing as Bin Laden, so whether one subscribes to a justice system that doesn't include a death penalty doesn't really make much of a difference. Or to put it another way: one way or another, all countries kill certain people they don't like or agree with in certain contexts. It doesn't matter what country you come from or what sort of justice system it has, but it does matter what context you choose to judge the situation from.

Everyone has a context, relevant to them personally, from which they can choose to judge the killing of Bin Laden as proper.

[edit] I will say, though, and I don't think this will surprise anyone about me, but I don't have much use for an absolute pacifistic viewpoint. It's naive and inconsistent with reality.

And I'm not sure... what's the significance of the number 79?

It's 1 less than 80, which is a round number.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's 1 less than 80, which is a round number.

Damn numerologists.

 

[OmCheeto]

Before I explode in some over-analytical blah blah, I'd just like say; "Yay!"

 

[Newai]

Damn numerologists.

Wiki says that a "round number is mathematically defined as the product of a considerable number of comparatively small factors."

I get it. Sounds just like bin laden.

 

[lisab]

No one is trying to take credit away from him, they are just pointing out that a lot of credit should probably go to President Bush as well.

You complain about folks trying to divert credit from Obama, but it is equally wrong to act as if Obama did this all by himself, that there was no building on what had been done before.

I agree, the trail that led to OBL's killing started during the Bush administration.

But - to shamelessly steal a pic from Char - this is a huge win for Obama:

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree, the trail that led to OBL's killing started during the Bush administration.

But - to shamelessly steal a pic from Char - this is a huge win for Obama:

No worries. I just didn't want to post it here.

 

[CAC1001]

Definitely a huge win for Obama and he deserves credit for having had the guts to go ahead with it as it could have ended up as what happened to Carter or the Blackhawk Down incident.

 

[rootX]

Definitely a huge win for Obama and he deserves credit for having had the guts to go ahead with it as it could have ended up as what happened to Carter or the Blackhawk Down incident.

US drone attacks caught attention in the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425" . I don't see how this would have been something new or catastrophic for the US.

 

[CAC1001]

US drone attacks caught attention in the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425" . I don't see how this would have been something new or catastrophic for the US.

I meant if we had a lot of Special Operations soldiers killed or captured.

 

[lisab]

I meant if we had a lot of Special Operations soldiers killed or captured.

Yes, it would have been a disaster.

General Colin Powell was interviewed on NPR this evening. He said that dropping a bomb on the compound was an option, but Obama chose to send in troops to ensure the target was in fact OBL. Risky but worth it, IMO.

 

[rootX]

I meant if we had a lot of Special Operations soldiers killed or captured.

I noticed people mentioned it a daring operation many times in this thread but I had been seeing it daring the other way.

While we don't know the details behind the operation but it certainly was very bold to send 79 soldiers into an unknown situation.

 

[WhoWee]

That is the way war mongers work. I see no modern diff between US and Bin Laden and Hitler anymore. They begin to blend together in a hating and war-monging symbionce. The only diff today is that the US is super-rich and the peoples it kills in the name of freedom are not as rich.

It's time to support your statements.

 

[Evo]

It's time to support your statements.

He is no longer with us.

 

[Pengwuino]

He is no longer with us.

He get banned? or is he at the bottom of an ocean

 

[lisab]

I noticed people mentioned it a daring operation many times in this thread but I had been seeing it daring the other way.

While we don't know the details behind the operation but it certainly was very bold to send 79 soldiers into an unknown situation.

Indeed...that's why we scrutinize the folks we put in power. From http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110502/us_time/httpswamplandtimecom20110502insidethesituationroomweveiddgeronimoxidrssfullnationyahoo" I just read - this shows what it takes to make this kind of decision:

He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios - the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President's senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.

Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. At that point, the operation was taken out of his hands. He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck. He was putting his presidency in the hands of history.

One thing in there I disagree with, though: "He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck." Well not really. Having SEALs on our side does wonders to tilt "luck" our way .

 

[DaveC426913]

He get banned? or is he at the bottom of an ocean

There's a diff?

 

[WhoWee]

Now, will we stop handing out billions yearly to an unstable nuclear power that could fall to tribal in-fighting? That's a tough one. Keep bankrolling a bunch of crooks if they look like they can maintain stability, or roll the dice?

I think we should "offer" to operate their nuclear facilities - to ensure their safety - asap.

 

[Pengwuino]

There's a diff?

Evo might have to make a speech for the latter

 

[Adyssa]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

 

[Char. Limit]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

Well, in my opinion, people like Bin Laden are a special exception. And you might be more credible if you spelled "hypocrisy" correctly, not that I'm making a hypocritical statement.

 

[DaveC426913]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

Again: the murderer that killed 3000 people was apprehended. This is cause for celebration. They would be celabrating even if he were alive, because he would be brought to justice and they would still have closure.

Independent of that: in being apprehended, he chose not to do so peaceully, and was killed in the process.


You presume people are celebrating because of his death. You presume too much.

 

[CAC1001]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

No it isn't. It would be wrong if for example in retaliation for the Lockerbie bombing, someone blew up a plane full of Libyans and people were cheering and celebrating. That would be wrong because you don't celebrate the deaths of more innocents because some a-hole killed your own citizens.

But if someone slaughters a bunch of your own people and then you manage to kill that very person, celebration is perfectly fine.

 

[Al68]

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

Not if one realizes that that what is being celebrated is justice, not human death. They just coincided in this case.

 

[Newai]

Meh. A lot of people are celebrating his death. Though I don't know why it would be wrong to celebrate the death of someone who celebrated the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

 

[GeorginaS]

Again: the murderer that killed 3000 people was apprehended.

Well, the murderers of those 3,000 people were killed in the process of the act.

Meh. A lot of people are celebrating his death. Though I don't know why it would be wrong to celebrate the death of someone who celebrated the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

One would hope that the majority of people ought to behave with a bit more dignity than a terrorist, don't you think?

 

[Newai]

One would hope that the majority of people ought to behave with a bit more dignity than a terrorist, don't you think?

Ever read YouTube comments?

 

[WhoWee]

Well, the murderers of those 3,000 people were killed in the process of the act.


One would hope that the majority of people ought to behave with a bit more dignity than a terrorist, don't you think?

Do you really want to make that comparison? (my bold)

http://www.usnews.com/news/religion...why-did-so-many-muslims-seem-to-celebrate-911

""The face of terror," President Bush confidently announced, "is not the true faith of Islam."


But if all that were true, why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim "street," stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden's henchmen had accomplished? For that matter, why were certain Islamic jurists in Pakistan issuing fatwas directing Muslims to fight American infidels if they attacked Afghanistan? And why do firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world continue to issue equally inflammatory decrees? Most disturbing, some of those same voices of moderation had occasionally expressed their approval of Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that engage in terrorism.

In the years since 9/11, scholars and experts have done little to resolve the contradictions. Often, they have merely taken them to a higher level. On one side, broadly speaking, are those sympathetic to the views of Princeton historian Bernard Lewis. The British-born scholar and author sees the events of 9/11 as the tragic consequence of a long conflict between the Islamic world and the West, a conflict largely dominated by the former until a little over 300 years ago, when the Ottomans failed in their second attempt to take Vienna. Crediting bin Laden with a strong (if not altogether accurate) sense of history, Lewis argues that the al Qaeda leader gave expression to the "resentment and rage" of people throughout the Islamic world."

 

[rootX]

In the years since 9/11, scholars and experts have done little to resolve the contradictions. Often, they have merely taken them to a higher level.

You seem to be claiming us, crackpots or at least average/none knowledge people, can do better than those scholars and experts?
(I might have understood those lines incorrectly)

Edit: I noticed this was from the article. But I as soon I noticed it, I didn't bother to read rest of the article. I also don't see anything impressive about the author (Jay Tolson: http://www.loyno.edu/wpc/jay-tolson )

Well, the murderers of those 3,000 people were killed in the process of the act.
One would hope that the majority of people ought to behave with a bit more dignity than a terrorist, don't you think?

Personally, I did not celebrate his death. What I felt happy about was bit of raise in my hope that this madness can come to an end. My # 2 post: "I hope this will weaken the terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan".

 

[bobze]

One thing in there I disagree with, though: "He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck." Well not really. Having SEALs on our side does wonders to tilt "luck" our way .

Indeed. +1

 

[Opus_723]

But if all that were true, why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim "street," stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden's henchmen had accomplished? For that matter, why were certain Islamic jurists in Pakistan issuing fatwas directing Muslims to fight American infidels if they attacked Afghanistan? And why do firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world continue to issue equally inflammatory decrees? Most disturbing, some of those same voices of moderation had occasionally expressed their approval of Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that engage in terrorism.

I think there's a big difference between Islam as a whole and the fundamentalist Muslims that seem to hold positions of power. Just like our most vocal right-wing politicians don't reflect the majority of Christians.

Islam is a broad, diffuse religion. Just because a significant number of people cheered for 9/11 doesn't mean Muslims as a whole supported it. Even if a dominating institution like the Catholic Church supports something, no one claims that they speak for all Christians.

In fact, I will point to the next paragraph of the article you quoted:

Strongly rejecting this reading of the problem are the experts associated with the late Columbia literature Prof. Edward Said, author of the influential book Orientalism. The Palestinian-American scholar charged that Lewis is one of those western "orientalists" whose oversimplification of eastern civilizations has helped to justify European imperalism. Said insisted that Islam is no "monolithic whole" but a divided body of competing "interpretations." It should be treated the same way Christianity and Judaism are, Said urged, "as vast complexities that are neither all-inclusive nor completely deterministic in how they affect their adherents." On such disagreements turns an even larger question: Was September 11 the outgrowth of a "clash of civilizations," in the words of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington? Or was it the product of a struggle within a civilization?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think there's a big difference between Islam as a whole and the fundamentalist Muslims that seem to hold positions of power. Just like our most vocal right-wing politicians don't reflect the majority of Christians.

Islam is a broad, diffuse religion. Just because a significant number of people cheered for 9/11 doesn't mean Muslims as a whole supported it. Even if a dominating institution like the Catholic Church supports something, no one claims that they speak for all Christians.

Well said. I would have thought it would go without saying, but it seems WhoWee didn't think that some don't speak for all.

 

[Ryumast3r]

[PLAIN]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/memes-untitled2.jpg[/QUOTE]

Win.

I agree, the trail that led to OBL's killing started during the Bush administration.

But - to shamelessly steal a pic from Char - this is a huge win for Obama:

[PLAIN]http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn115/meanerthanu/obama.png[/QUOTE]

Epic win.

Celebrating the death of anyone, terrorist leader or not, is digusting IMHO and I feel physically sick reading the news and comments today.

The hypocracy is stupifying.

... How to respond to this without knifing a kitten... Celebrating the death of a mass-murderer is not necessarily celebrating the death of a person, it is celebrating the end of the mass-murders that the mass-murderer caused. It is celebrating the end of the pain and suffering that the person who happened to die represented and caused, either directly, or indirectly (osama was a bit of both... he personally killed people, and he orchestrated deaths as well, though mostly the latter). If you are sick by people celebrating justice, and an end to suffering, then you disgust me, and make ME sick.

 

[Al68]

Now that's a pretty good excuse! I'll buy that.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Just to add a quick bit to this, it would've been really brobama of him if he'd done this for his speech:

[PLAIN]http://cdn.raywj.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_lkkynzBige1qztrxyo1_400.gif

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

So now that the job is done, I suppose everybody will coming back home now from Afghanistan.

...

(now what's the official reason these days?)